The political situation in Lebanon over the past few days can be described as the calm before the storm.
Instability and creating a political conundrum in the country were on the agenda as a joint project among the domestic elements, political rivals and foreign anti-Lebanese movements, who had not been successful in materializing their goals in the past.
Manipulation of the internal protests, which were initially formed with economic purposes, did so little in obstructing the process of forming the new Lebanese government, although such uproars could bring about turmoil for a short period.
On the other hand, forcing the Resistance Movement to either join the protesters or be removed from the political arena was the next project that was pursued. Hezbollah had no choice; either it had to stand by the protesters, which meant contributing to the scenario of making Lebanon insecure, or let its popular position among the protesters would be tarnished.
Although the foreign movements’ priority was not to impede the formation of a new government, it could have given them an opportunity for a while to revitalize and rebuild their political position. Such movements are those whose leaders have long relied on foreign support to turn domestic crises into opportunities to secure their political wishes.
The political movements in Lebanon can best be described as those who are “partners with the thieves and pretend to be friends with the host”. They were also allied with the “government of the banks” and contributed to the country’s economic collapse. “government of the banks” is a disgusting political term that defines the corrupt political class in Lebanon.
The developments in the past days can reveal “warning signals” about foreign intervention and pre-determined plots that sought to push Lebanon into a new scenario. The main objective of such a scenario is to provide perimeter security for the Israeli regime and destroy the deterrence of the Resistance Movement and to compensate for the defeat in Syria. Some of these signals have commonalities with the situation after the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005.
Although the Arabic and American media, in the very first moment, accused Hezbollah of being behind the incident, it can be said that the odds are high about the possibility of a sabotage plan.
Whether the new incident has similar objectives, like the situation after the assassination of Rafic Hariri which provided the grounds for the Syrian army to withdraw from the Lebanese border and the occupied territories, is to be answered in the next few days by the Americans’ stance and approach.
However, the scope of this new scenario is wider, deeper and more dangerous.
Even if we accept that the Israelis and the United States were not involved in the Beirut bombing and put aside the possibility of any sabotage plan, they will certainly not ignore this opportunity to seek their political exploitation and to pave the way for shaping a new Lebanese political structure.
The explosion has once again provided an opportunity for Al-Hadath, Al-Arabiya, and Western media outlets to fan the flames, which are likely to be burning by the US.
French Foreign Minister’s visit to Beirut and France’s pressures to the country, along with the US ambassador’s occasional interventions, the Israeli regime’s movements on the occupied borders, US spy planes patrolling the Lebanon-Syria coast a day before the Beirut bombing, the meeting last week between the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US and the Israeli regime, the sudden resignation of Lebanese Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti, foreign and regional pressure to overthrow the Lebanese cabinet, and the identification of vulnerable Lebanese areas by the Zionist regime are among the most critical events in Lebanon in recent weeks, that should be considered while reviewing the Beirut explosion and the goals behind it.
Besides, the storage of this amount of chemicals in the port of Beirut is not something that the Israelis were unaware of. The analyses after the explosion possibly can show which movement is going to take the most advantage of the Beirut explosion.
It should be noted that the port of Beirut is the main port of Lebanon, through which more than 70% of the country’s imports are carried out to provide the basic needs of the people; in such circumstances, the Lebanese economy will be seriously damaged. It is in the interest of the opponents of the Resistance and could help them put maximum pressure on the Resistance Movement, or at least to moderate or neutralize its measures against to the Zionist regime.
Therefore, it seems that all the pieces of the puzzle have been prepared to put Lebanon in a state of economic and political turmoil in order to design a new scenario.
From the very first moment, the Saudi and American media and the Zionist-affiliated elements inside and outside Lebanon will exert every effort to accuse Hezbollah and the Resistance Movement’s allies as the main culprits.
The Americans, who did not take a clear stance immediately after the explosion, will undoubtedly try to impose their wishes on the Lebanese government under the pretext of rebuilding or providing financial assistance in the turbulent economic situation in Lebanon.
Certainly, their most important wish would be the gradual elimination of Resistance from the Lebanese political arena as well as the implementation of the Caesar Law on Syria.
The explosion will also give the US and Israeli regime more time to design their plots, as dealing with the explosion will need a big share of the Lebanese government’s time and efforts.
The scenario of the assassination of Rafic Hariri in 2005, which marked the beginning of a new chapter in foreign interventions in Lebanon, seems to be being pursued on a larger and more dangerous scale with the bombing of Beirut. However, the role of Hezbollah’s valuable experiences in managing critical political situations and changing the equation should not be overlooked.